New York Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X Over Hate Speech Disclosure Law

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The State of New York is urging a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which challenges the constitutionality of a new law requiring large social media companies to publicly disclose how they moderate hate speech and harmful online content.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this year by X Corp., takes aim at New York’s Stop Hiding Hate Act, a law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December 2024. The legislation mandates that major social media platforms—defined as companies generating at least $100 million in annual revenue—must publish detailed transparency reports outlining their content moderation policies. These reports must explain how they address online hate speech, harassment, extremist rhetoric, misinformation, and foreign interference in political discourse.

The State’s Argument: A Law About Transparency, Not Censorship

In a filing submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Letitia James urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the law does not infringe on any company’s First Amendment rights. Instead, James said, the legislation serves a vital public interest by helping consumers understand the digital environments they engage in.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

James also emphasized that the law is not a government attempt to control speech or impose editorial oversight. Rather, it’s a transparency measure designed to hold social media platforms accountable for their influence on public discourse and the spread of potentially dangerous online material.

X Corp’s Challenge: ‘Unconstitutional Overreach’

Elon Musk’s X Corp. argues that the New York law crosses constitutional boundaries. According to the company’s complaint, the statute “compels speech” by forcing private companies to disclose internal policies about moderation—decisions that X says are “inherently expressive and sensitive.”

X claims that the law could chill free expression by inviting political scrutiny of moderation choices that often involve controversial or nuanced forms of speech. “Government-mandated disclosures about speech moderation directly interfere with editorial freedom,” X’s legal team wrote in its filing.

The company further argues that the law is vague and overly broad, allowing the state to potentially punish companies for perceived failures in compliance. Violations of the law can lead to civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day, a steep fine that X’s attorneys say could deter open discourse and innovation in moderation strategies.

Legal Precedent and Constitutional Tension

The case reflects a broader national debate over how far states can go in regulating online speech and the policies of private tech companies. X’s lawsuit cites a September 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which struck down portions of a similar California law on First Amendment grounds.

In that ruling, the court found that California’s transparency law unconstitutionally compelled speech by requiring companies to publish information about how they moderate political or controversial speech. X argues that New York’s statute, modeled in part on California’s version, suffers from the same constitutional flaws.

However, Attorney General James pushed back, asserting that the California case was decided incorrectly and that New York’s law is distinct. She maintained that the Stop Hiding Hate Act does not interfere with editorial discretion or compel companies to adopt specific viewpoints—it merely requires disclosure of moderation practices.

A Clash Between Regulation and Musk’s Free Speech Vision

Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, the platform—rebranded as X—has undergone sweeping changes in content moderation, staffing, and policy. Musk has described himself as a “free speech absolutist” and rolled back many of Twitter’s prior moderation practices, framing the move as an effort to promote open dialogue and resist censorship.

However, critics say those changes have led to a resurgence of hate speech, misinformation, and harassment on the platform. Civil rights groups and watchdog organizations have repeatedly raised concerns that X’s policies allow harmful content to spread unchecked.

New York lawmakers argued that these developments reinforced the need for stronger transparency laws. Governor Hochul and Attorney General James both cited the Stop Hiding Hate Act as a step toward responsible digital governance, ensuring that platforms as influential as X, Meta, and YouTube are more open about their policies.

Implications Beyond New York

The outcome of X Corp. v. James could set a significant precedent for how states regulate social media companies nationwide. If the court sides with X, it could limit state governments’ ability to demand transparency from major tech firms. On the other hand, if New York prevails, it may embolden other states to enact similar laws aimed at holding social media giants accountable for their role in public discourse.

The case also highlights the growing tension between Musk’s libertarian approach to online speech and government efforts to combat harmful digital content. As misinformation, hate speech, and extremist propaganda continue to influence real-world events, the balance between transparency, free expression, and regulation remains a defining issue for lawmakers and tech leaders alike.

For now, X continues to maintain that the Stop Hiding Hate Act infringes on constitutional rights, while New York insists that it’s a simple call for openness. The lawsuit, filed under case number 25-05068 in the Southern District of New York, remains pending, with a ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss expected in the coming months.

Stay ahead of the latest legal developments shaping technology and free speech. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore in-demand legal jobs in technology, government regulation, and constitutional law.